Wednesday, February 21, 2007

The Jewish Star on the Orthomom Lawsuit

A Lawrence school board trustee is suing the widely read Five Towns blogger known as "Orthomom,"claiming that she was defamed by online comments that referred to her as a "bigot" and an "anti-Semite."

Pamela Greenbaum said she hopes to force Google, which hosts the Orthomom blog, to release information that would enable her to identify the blogger and bring legal action directly against her.

The lawsuit was filed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan on Feb. 13.In a sworn statement, Greenbaum said, "Orthomom and her readers in the comments section have posted false, slanderous and defamatory statements about me ... for my positions advocating against the use of public school district funds for private school interests."

Under oath, Greenbaum claimed that Orthomom made the comments in a posting on Jan. 11 concerning an article in The Jewish Star. In the article, Greenbaum was quoted as saying she would object if public-school teachers were involved in a proposed after-school program for private-school students.

Orthomom responded, "Wow. Way to make it clear that you have no interest in helping the private school community inanyfashion." The response did not include the words "bigot" or "anti-Semite." An anonymous commenter posted the statement "Pam Greenbaum is a bigot and really should not be on the board," and a second agreed.

Via e-mail, Orthomom said she believes that Greenbaum's filings contained falsehoods. "There's not a word in there that I wrote," she said. "Not only is she incorrect, but she attributed to me completely fabricated statements out of whole cloth."

"A quick perusal of my postings will assure that the comments in question were made not in my name," she said, "but in the name of an unknown anonymous commenter."

In fact, an examination by The Jewish Star of all 150 Comments filed that day turned up just two instances of the term "anti-Semite." In both the word was misspelled, rendered as "semetic." Neither was aimed at Greenbaum, but seemed to refer instead to the private-school parents on the board. For example: "We would rather the state step in than have to put up with the closeminded anti semetic jews who run this district, I am ashamed to be a jew as well."

The heart of the matter, according to Jonathan Ezor, director of the Institute forBusiness, Law and Technology at the Touro Law Center and an assistant professor there, is that "Unless Google and/or Orthomom actually wrote the allegedly defamatory things in question, federal law immunizes them from lawsuit. That has been repeatedly challenged, and the law remains current."

When contacted by phone, Greenbaum refused to comment. A call to her attorney, Adam Feder of North Woodmere, who filed the suit, was not returned.

"I also want to stress that Pamela Greenbaum is not the victim here," Orthomom said via e-mail. "I am the victim of a frivolous motion filed in an attempt to quash free speech while wasting the court's time and money."

Paul Alan Levy is an attorney with the group Public Citizen, which successfully represented a blogger in Rockland County who was sued after he publicized alleged misdeeds of a well-known rabbinical figure. In that case, the rabbi who brought the suit "was slapped with a twenty thousand dollar attorney fee," said Levy, under New York State's 'Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation' statute, known as SLAPP.

"If I were Pamela Greenbaum I would worry about getting hit with a SLAPP motion," he said, "because it's hard to see the basis for this action. If this were an attempt to silence an active voice leading up to a school board election, then Pamela Greenbaum ought to think about whether it's worth the risk."

There is also the question of whether calling public official names meets the legal definition of defamation. "A third party calling someone bigoted on my site in response to a public policy policy comment hardly crosses the line of defamation," Orthomom said.

School board President Asher Mansdorf said he was "astonished" to learn about the lawsuit. "Following the very personal death threat issued against me and my family, I requested that as a security measure, photo ID be required to enter Lawrence school board meetings. Pamela's knee-jerk reaction was to state that the effect of this on the public would be 'chilling.' Does Pam not think that a lawsuit will have a chilling effect on free speech?" Mansdorf recalled, "She often advised that I develop a 'thick skin' and ignore the comments. I suppose it is easier to give advice than to listen to one's own."

"As a board member for many years, and one who has faced a tremendous amount of criticism, the idea of attempting to shut down a public blog and attack what I consider the first amendment is beyond belief," said Trustee David Sussman. "Clearly, when you go into the public arena, a lot is said about you, both good and bad. If you can't take that, then you have no place in the public arena."

Orthomom's true identity is a closely guarded secret believed to be known by only a handful of people. For interested parties, including some dedicated readers, it is the subject of parlor game-like speculation. Is Greenbaum's lawsuit to unmask her likely to succeed? No, according to Ezor. "Anonymous identities are generally protected by the First Amendment," he said. "Unless there is some legal claim against Orthomom, there wouldn't be justification for a court to order Google to release her identity."

..."In short," said Public Citizen's Levy, "there's really nothing to this case."

I especially like the part where we hear from School Board President Asher Mansdorf about Pamela Greenbaum's touching concern over the possibility of "chilling free speech". I can tell how broken up she gets over the prospect.

Discussing the First Amendment, our right to free speech, brings us to the second instance of a local media outlet becoming the news. “Orthomom,” one person’s thoughts and impressions of local events, ren- dered online, is a local institution. The blogger behind “Orthomom” is clearly intelligent and a good writer, too. Not everyone agrees with all of his or her opinions, of course, and that’s as it ought to be. Harder to swallow, sometimes, can be the abrupt, rude, obnoxious, bigot- ed, anti-Orthodox, anti-UNorthodox, even anti-Semitic, comments that anonymous posters are free to leave there, as they riff on Orthomom’s thoughts and postings. Hard as those may be to take, how- ever, they too are protected by the First Amendment. And not only that, but the anonymous Orthomom, like all blog- gers, is specifically protected by an act of Congress, from any and all responsi- bility for whatever unpleasant mes- sages the site’s readers might leave behind. Since that’s the case, it is very hard to understand why an intelligent woman like Pamela Greenbaum would run to court crying ‘defamation’ as a pretext for unmasking Orthomom, a steady critic of Greenbaum’s positions on school issues. Greenbaum herself has some notable quotes to her credit, too, including a well-publicized concern that photo ID’s as a security measure would have a “chilling” effect on free speech. In our review of the Orthomom blog it appeared that Orthomom never said the things about Greenbaum alleged in the court filing. Even the often out-of- control commenters don’t appear to have said all that Greenbaum alleges. Was this all part of an attempt to shut down the Orthomom blog in time for the school board election? Perhaps we’ll find out when this gets to court — and perhaps gets thrown out of court just as quickly. The appalling lack of judgment shown here, however, suggests another course of action might be in order. Pamela Greenbaum ought to resign as a trustee of the Lawrence School Board. Because the most charitable explanation for her lawsuit is that she simply can’t take the heat.

What's truly remarkable is the degree to which this ridiculous episode has galvanized diverse elements of the blog world - orthodox and secular, establishment and radical - to support OM's position.

I believe this support stems mainly from the outrageous nature of Greenbaum's legal action, as well as the blatant hypocrisy fueling it. Greenbaum and co. have made it so unbelievably easy to dislike their stance, both via their actions in the court and through their comments on various blog forums, that it's amazing to some of us that she commands any support at all. How doctrinaire and mindless must you be to see that this woman is neither legally nor morally in the right by an incredibly long shot? How blind must you be to gloss over the amazingly peurile comments posted by Greenbaum or her pals and still view her with even a modicum of respect? How much tolerance for ill-will can you have in order to stomach choice quotes such as "subhuman" (yes, in a page from a nazi propaganda book, a greenbaum supporter referred to an orthodox commenter as subhuman) and actions such as waving away death threats in the name of free speech and then crying foul when that basic right comes back to skewer you instead (and with nothing as frightening as a death threat - merely some name calling).

Prior to this weekend, I could count the number of times I had read this blog on one hand (sorry OM). I found out about this story through Canonist, an old friend and colleague whom I attempt to read semi-regularly in the midst of trying to graduate medical school. But in the past five days this story has moved me to comment an uncharacteristicly large number of times precisely because the person or people opposing OM here are so amazingly wrongheaded and infuriating. Remarkeably, they simultaneously manage to offend my orthodox, liberal, intellectual and emotional sensibilities - and such a contradictory set of transgressions speaks of a particularly egregious offense indeed.

Ms. Greenbaum, very soon, the game will be up. The paper-thin legal strength of your complaint will be exposed by a court of law for all to see, and your apparent perjury will become a matter of public record. The time will then come for you and your cronies to step down from your positions. Organized government has no place for such shenanigans, and you dishonor your district by representing it. I say this neither as a dogmatic (subhuman?) orthodox jew, nor as an irate Lawrence taxpayer, but ultimately, as a staunch believer in the strength of representative democracy and civil rights. If Ms. Greenberg with her disregard for those rights is the individual we've chosen to represent us, I shudder to think what that says about about our community. I hope we have the moral rectitude to clarify this "statement" in the future.

And Mr. Feder? If you think you smell "blood and fear" - here's some free medical advice - olfactory hallucinations may be a sign of serious central nervous system disease such as brain tumor or epilepsy. Consult with your doctor. I note this because yidwithalid - an unrelated commentor to this affair - and even in the best of all possible legal fantasies you can come up with he/she has nothing to fear from you, and is at no risk of "bloodletting" of any kind. So I really fail to see how a grassroots campaign of support demonstrates ANYTHING about your target, orthomom. Ergo, your brain's smell centers are playing tricks on you.

There is of course the remote possibility that you wrote this because you're misleading PG into the strength of her case. If that is so, you may be in violation of at least some ethical codes I can think of. But I dont automatically presume the worst of my fellow man - usually they have to earn such mistrust.

At the risk of sounding overly presumptuous, I can't think of any better adjective for Ms. Greenbaum than LOSER. If any court even cares to hear her claims, they may ultimately debate whether she is actually an anti-semite or ugly (and that picture on page 10 of the Jewish Star is pretty telling), but it will always remain uncontrovertible that she is a LOSER for wasting her time, energy and money (or anyone else's) on this poor excuse for a lawsuit (and she may even learn the hard way if they slap her with Google's legal fees - gee, I hope Google has some really fancy lawyers). If her "constituents" have any wisdom, they should be looking for another candidate to replace her in the upcoming election.

I still think that occasional review of comments so as to weed out outrageous and potentially besmirching remarks wouldn't be a bad idea.

If you think of a blog as similar to your very own newspaper, and the comments as "Letters to the Editor", even though the reality is not the same and the material out there is really weird, and Ortho blogger should be a bit more circusmpect and responsible.

That's why there's a delete function for you on your blog comments section.

Otherwise, heck, now thou art famous for real. Nothing like a scandal (hopefully, someone elses) to provide the platform for fame. Will you still remember us OrthoMom?

Orthomom-Everyone agrees that the lawsuit is a joke. However there is a real story here. You have your right to free speach and say intelligent things. However by giving people the ability to vent and say hateful things (hiding behind the mask of anonimity)does not bode well for the frum community. Can you imagine the reprecussions? The "public school" supporters print out these comments and say "so this is what the frum people say about us!"That is a Chillul Hashem

Anonynous 10:12: So what do you propose? A blanket rule preventing all people claiming to be frum from posting on-line (or in a newspaper)? For that matter, if your concern is the ability of someone else to point to comments made by frum people, what is the relevence of anonymity? Others could point to the comments whether made anonymously or by an identifiable person. It is clear people need to vent. This site's comments area provides a public forum for doing so. There is nothing wrong with that. If comments go over the line, OM can (and has) delete[d] them. Just as no one thinks an African-American (anonymous or not) blog-commenter speaks for all African-Americans, no serious-minded person would think that a self-described frum commenter on this site (anonymous or not) speaks for, or is representative of, the entire frum community.

If I may add to the discussion for a second. I don't think it is appropriate for us to call Greenbaum names. I have poked tons of fun at her lawsuit but not her.

The object here is not to back her up into a corner, its to get her to drop the stupid lawsuit and go on with her life.

With that said...When the attorney sent me the email instead of hers, I almost expoded from holding in the really nasty comments. And this is what I replied

Dear Ms. Greenbaum,

I believe I received this from your attorney in Error. That it was meant for you not me. You should make sure he is a bit more careful. I got your email from a public school board document.

As far as smelling blood, I don't know about that since I know neither you or Orthomom. I am sure that you know that your little suit has cased quite the stir in the internet. People have posted about you and Orthomom in Chicago, Israel, Los Angeles and little me from Tennessee. But what you don't understand is that the Blogworld is kind of like a family--- even though we don't know each other...we protect each other.

As I told your attorney in a seperate email the only thing he smells is the Pizza I had for lunch (it had onions).

In regards to 10:26-How did we survive our entire lives without a forum "to vent"? And does our need to vent also include calling someone out for being ugly?My use in 10:12 of the concept of anonimity is that we can say far owrse things when no one knows our names than if we had to stand behind our words

Wow, I have responses to two people here. First to anonymous 10:12 and 12:38 -- just because there are other venues to vent does not mean that this is not a better or at least satisfactory alternative. As for calling someone ugly, not the way I choose to go, I find that ad hominem (sp?) attacks are usually counterproductive and make me think that the attacker has run out of relevent or usefull things to say. As to anonymity, I don't think the freedom of being able to make one's points and have them considered on their merits without fear or concern of one's identiy being revealed outweighs the legitimate concern you (and many others, including myself sometimes) have that the cloak of anonymity will allow posters to cross lines that they would (and should) not otherwise cross.To Yid with Lid. While I have previously found your comments here and postings on your site to be thoughtful and intelligent (although I didn't always agree [e.g. re: Gourmet Glatt]), I thought it wrong for you to e-mail Ms. Greenbaum claiming to know what OM's readers think ("I know you have had your feelings hurt by those horrible accusations made by that anonymous commenter. None of Orhomom's readers believe that idiot.") Your blog has provided you with a great forum for letting everyone who is interested know how you feel about various issues and you have also done so by posting here and I think that is great. I think it presumptuous of you, however, to claim to speak for all of OM's readers (or even for all of your own readers for that matter).

Sorry for being presumptuous, because I dont even speak for my own houshold--by the way do you have a name?

I made the assumption that most of the people that read this blog (and I do almost every day but just dont post most of the time) believe that its cool do disagree with people respectfully, which is what you just did, but what dont agree that people should call others names. I apologize to you (whatever your name is) and everyone else. I should have said most of her readers (at least those who comment) dont believe that idiot. And I shouldn't have called him an idiot either for that I am sorry.

I was just trying to make a point to her regarding how silly her lawsuit is.

If I offended anyone I sincerely apologize.

BTW Mr Whats your name, I really do appreceate the fact that you have read my blog,

Yid with Lid: While I do have a name, I enjoy the anonymity afforded in the blogosphere and intend to keep my true identity to myself -- while sharing my true feelings (aww, isn't that precious). I know you don't share my feelings on this point (since my decision to remain anonymous prevents me from posting on your site). Vive la diferance. And by the way, I also disagree with you in that I do not believe that the comments regarding Ms. Greenbaum were so offensive that they crossed the lines of relatively civil discourse and I certainly don't think that they rose to a level requiring an apology by anyone other than the poster(s). Of course, given the nature of these threads, the many issues on which I do agree with you don't get mentioned. (I do think it is important to remember that OM has made clear that although she didn't find them that offensive either, she would have simply removed them had Ms. Greenbaum asked her to, rather than filing a silly suit).

You were warned this would happen. All those comments and expert opinions are just wishful thinking and indicative of worry. Anyone with a brain would stop the prognostications and wait until a judicial decision is rendered in this case. If she loses, she looks foolish. If she wins, all of you look like fools.

You were warned this would happen. All those comments and expert opinions are just wishful thinking and indicative of worry. Anyone with a brain would stop the prognostications and wait until a judicial decision is rendered in this case. If she loses, she looks foolish. If she wins, all of you look like fools. "

You can warn all you want. The law is the law. Calling someone biased or bigoted is simply not defamatory. Especially at the hands of a commenter. pamela already looks foolish. No need to wait to see the outcome here.

"The law is the law."?The law is the law after a Judge renders a decision. Precedent has been overturned in the past. Remember Brown v. Board of Education? The abuses of bloggers can very well result in a decision further proscribing freedom of speech. "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater." The same principal can very well be applied to this case, when we have all become so concerned with sensitivities.

reported nearly everybody repayment their mortgages punctually along with without having bank charges A respected unsecured debt nonprofit charities desires how many many people checking out individuals just for assist finished fast cash advance obligations to help double this specific. arrears nonprofit claims close to purchased a cash advance, superior attention mortgages this season. Typically the aid organization states that three years earlier may be individuals with them was basically minor. pożyczki prywatnepożyczka na dowódpożyczka bez bik smskredyty bez bik mbankszybka pożyczka

Hi, I do believe this is a great site. I stumbledupon it ;) I will revisit once again since I book-marked it.Money and freedom is the best way to change, may you be rich and continue to help other people.

I don't drop a leave a response, however I browsed some remarks here "The Jewish Star on the Orthomom Lawsuit". I do have 2 questions for you if it's allright.

Is it simply me or does it look like a few of the remarks appear like they are left by brain dead people? :-P And, if you are writing on additional online sites, I'd like to keep up with everything new you have to post. Would you make a list of the complete urls of your shared sites like your Facebook page, twitter feed, or linkedin profile?